The Path to Green
Will the New Green Codes Make High Energy Performance Mandatory?

by Megan
Headley

Since 2000, the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system has worked to
create a new language in construction and design, one in which “green”
refers not to glass’ color but to its performance. Also in 2000, the International
Code Council (ICC) established its International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC), a code that set a minimum for energy-efficiency performance in
a commercial building.

LEED was always meant to go beyond the minimum; it was meant
to encourage designers to push the envelope by providing a point-based
system of options that would, presumably, improve the performance of the
country’s building stock. The latest addition to the field of green requirements,
the ICC’s International Green Construction Code (IgCC) likewise is meant
to go beyond what is necessary in terms of sustainability and energy performance,
steps beyond its sibling, the IECC. However, the question being asked
is which green system is the one to follow? Will the adoption of the IgCC
mimic LEED’s skyrocketing growth and, if so, what might be the impact
on the glass and glazing industry?

What’s in a Code
After months of development, the ICC published the IgCC earlier this year.
The new model code addresses the construction and remodeling of commercial
structures as well as residential buildings. It cites 46 ASTM International
standards covering various aspects of building construction and incorporates
the 2011 version of American Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) standard 189.1 as an optional path to compliance.

As Tom Culp, owner of Birch Point Consulting in LaCrosse,
Wis., explains it, the IgCC follows in the steps of the IECC. While the
IECC references and incorporates ASHRAE 90.1, the Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, the IgCC incorporates
the related ASHRAE standard 189.1, Standard for the Design of High-Performance
Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. “They’re competing
energy codes, but they also work together,” Culps explains of the ICC-ASHRAE
relationship.

Culp says the IgCC is “similar to ASHRAE 189.1 in many ways,
but it is a completely different organization and development process
so there are a lot of things that are different. [IgCC] tends to be more
performance-based. For example you’re only able to use the prescriptive
path for buildings that are 25,000 square feet and smaller. For anything
bigger you have to go the performance path, which they want to do because
it promotes integrated design and looking at the building as a system.
It adds complexity but, from our viewpoint, it adds flexibility.”

In addition, he adds, “[IgCC] has even stronger daylighting
requirements than 189.1, in the sense that it requires a certain percentage
of your floor space to be in a daylighted zone. Not only do you have to
meet certain criteria in lighting controls and glazing, but you have to
make sure you’re covering enough of your building and getting the daylight
not just around the perimeter but deep into the space, and that’s certainly
good for glazing.”

The new green code pushes jurisdictions that choose to adopt
it beyond the minimum code level, but leaves voluntary programs such as
the USGBC’s LEED rating system plenty room to push the definition of “green”
into new and more demanding territory.

While IgCC tests the waters, waiting to see if localities
around the country will adopt its green requirements as code, thereby
making “green” mandatory, ASHRAE is moving ahead with work on its next
edition of 189.1.

“They are working on stuff that we’re keeping an eye on,”
Culp says of the ASHRAE 189.1 committee (see Keeping an Eye on the Next
Standard Requirement on page 39).

The next version of IgCC will be issued 2015. Before development
can begin, code developers will need to see what happens in the upcoming
edition of the IECC; IgCC will always have to push beyond the minimums
established in IECC. What the IgCC truly brings to the table is the potential
for a locality to make green performance mandatory of all of its new construction.
This mandatory aspect is the primary difference between the I-code and
the most widely used green program, LEED.

LEED Turned Code
According to USGBC, more than 45,000 projects are currently participating
in the commercial and institutional LEED rating systems, comprising 8.4
billion square feet of construction space in all 50 states and 120 countries.

“USGBC’s LEED program still has a major influence on sustainable
design. Even if the project never makes it to the actual certification
stage, many projects are shaped by this program during the design stage,”
says Mike Turner, vice president of marketing for YKK AP America Inc.
in Austell, Ga., who also served as a co-chair for the American Architectural
Manufacturers Association working group on IgCC.

Tony Parker, LEED AP BD+C, project manager for Walters &
Wolf Curtain Wall in Mukilteo, Wash., agrees, based on what he sees in
the field.

“LEED is still the primary measuring stick for designers
because it allows for a real, understandable and quantifiable means of
determining a building’s amount of ‘green’ design and performance,” Parker
says. “LEED seems to be dominant throughout the majority of projects we
see and participate in these days. Almost every project we are involved
with is trying to achieve some level of LEED certification. Furthermore,
the construction industry as a whole seems to be saturated with LEED-accredited
individuals. That fact alone may be the single biggest indicator of LEED’s
current impact on the construction industry in this market.”

Culp agrees. “LEED is clearly the most dominant green program
out there, used by government and private buildings alike. It’s very popular,
sometimes controversial, but it is the dominant system out there. But
then you also have ASHRAE 189.1 and then you have the IgCC, and the USGBC
is actually partners on both of those.

“It’s a little strange that they’re helping to develop the
competition, but the main difference between the green codes and LEED
is that ASHRAE 189.1 and IgCC are both written as codes and standards;
they’re not point systems like LEED. While they still offer a lot of options
and flexibility, they’re written in the mandatory language [of codes]
rather than letting the designer choose what points they want to have,”
Culp says. That language is exactly what prompted the creation of the
codes. “There was pushback from some of the cities and counties and states
that said ‘we want all of our public buildings to be LEED-certified’ and
then people would say ‘but that’s not a code or a standard.’ Their hope
is that by being written in a code format [green building codes] will
be used more, especially in public, state and government buildings,” Culp
says.

Parker points out that, at times, the requirements the glazing
industry sets out to meet for LEED makes it all the more obvious that
LEED is not a code in and of itself.

“There are times when the local energy code may be in direct
conflict with LEED,” he says. “For example, LEED tends to value increased
daylighting in workspaces via the glass to promote better working environments,
but the overall U-value of the curtainwall may be compromised to achieve
this. With all that said, it is important to note that the glass and glazing’s
portion of contribution in terms of points to the overall LEED rating
is rather small when compared to the many other aspects of the building
design and construction process.”

Parker adds, “Remember, LEED was always intended to be a
completely voluntary system. By incorporating LEED style concepts into
the energy and/or building codes, ASHRAE 189.1 basically turns this voluntary
system into a mandatory one. That’s a pretty significant jump, if you
ask me.” However, the jump is only an issue in localities that adopt the
mandatory use of that system. Without adoption of the codes, there’s no
external push to promote energy performance.

IgCC’s Limited Range
While LEED clearly has a head start, IgCC hasn’t exactly hit the ground
running in terms of adoption. As of September 2012, the IgCC had been
adopted by Maryland, North Carolina, Florida, Oregon, Rhode Island, and
local governments in Arizona, New Hampshire and Washington. That’s not
the full story, however. Florida has adopted the code in relation to state
agencies’ construction. North Carolina is now enforcing portions of the
code related to rainwater harvesting.

“As it pertains to glass and curtainwall, I have not seen
any evidence suggesting that the IgCC or ASHRAE 189.1 are currently affecting
glass selection or curtainwall specified performances on the projects
we are involved with,” Parker says.

“While there has been a lot of attention given to the IgCC,
we have not seen much evidence of it affecting the selection of fenestration
on projects to date,” Turner agrees. “From our perspective, it appears
the primary driver for using advanced systems has not been code-related,
but rather to simply improve the building’s thermal envelope, reduce heat
loss and minimize formation of condensation. Many times, this activity
is connected with performance requirements to match the function of the
building, such as medical or institutional facilities.”

For states that do seem to be focusing on the IgCC in relation
to full-scale commercial construction—including Maryland and Oregon—glazing
contractors may not have had the opportunity to see this code in specifications
yet due to the lack of projects going up in those states. Of the several
glazing contractors in those states contacted for this article, the consensus
was that it’s difficult to tell the impact of the IgCC requirements on
new construction when there’s little new construction to report.

Among the most notable adoptees of ASHRAE 189.1 has been
the U.S. Army, but even that mandatory adoption has been questioned.

“For a while it was a mandate that all army facilities,
not just in the United States but worldwide, be built to ASHRAE 189.1
or at least parts of it; they would pick and choose certain chapters to
follow,” Culp says. “But in one of the defense authorization acts, where
they fund the defense, there was a requirement that the Department of
Defense (DOD) do an analysis of all the green standards—LEED, ASHRAE 189.1,
Green Globes, etc.—to see if they’re cost-effective before they actually
implement that. There might be a backlash on that, and it could be good
or bad. They might come back and say ‘yup, this is great, we want you
to use this on every—not just Army—but every DOD building worldwide,’
or they might come back and say ‘well, it doesn’t prove out, we’re going
to pull the plug and not use it at all.’

Is Green Design Really Green?
One of the chief concerns with LEED, and still one with many of the newer
green requirements, is the issue that the DOD is addressing currently:
does green design equate to green performance? While a designer may check
all of the popular points off on a list, there is no requirement to check
after a year of operation whether those green design choices actually
improve the performance of the building. That may change.

Already glass and window manufacturers are working to ensure
that codes and standards adopt new requirements that, through simulation
and testing, show evidence of truly improving a building.

“An important concept that our industry must work to uphold
is the basis of improving codes based on data that justifies that the
recommended change will, in fact, reduce the building’s energy demands,”
Turner says.

ASHRAE is itself seeking to ensure that the buildings that
reportedly meet its standards are living up to those expectations. The
organization is exploring the idea of building commissioning to address
the building’s built, versus projected, performance.

“Commissioning is viewed as an important part of a high-performance
building. That’s traditionally been making sure that the HVAC systems
are working, not just installed and high-efficiency but that they’re actually
all working together, and that the lighting controls are working. That’s
what they meant by commissioning in the old days. Now they want to address
commissioning the envelope,” Culp says.

The chief factor the standard developers hope to address
is the air leakage of the whole building.

“At first they had some very aggressive proposals, including
one that would have required air leakage testing at every window, which
would obviously have been a huge cost and liability on the glazing contractors,
but they quickly realized that was unrealistic,” says Culp.

Now standard developers are considering requiring an air
leakage test of the whole building, the equivalent of a blower door test
done on homes, or offering an option to hire a third-party agent to inspect
the air barrier. “That’s really the key thing. They want to go in and
make sure the air barrier is working and it’s installed properly,” Culp
says. “It affects our people, especially the glazing contractors, in that
they need to pay careful attention to not just installing the window and
the glazing, but how it interfaces with the wall.” This will go beyond
consideration of sealants and other water management techniques to include
more of a focus on incorporating glazing into the air barrier layer.

However, Culp adds, “[Commissioning] still does not get
at the point of a year later or two years later, is it working the way
it was designed? People are aware of that issue and so one thing they
are requiring is metering. When these buildings are built (and there are
certain exceptions for small buildings), they have to include metering
on the building and of different parts of the building so that you can
easily see how much energy is being used and where is it being used. The
idea is there’s still no requirement for somebody to go back and check
that, but at least it will be easier for the building owner to monitor,
and if they want to go back and check how they’re performing in real life,
it’s easier to do so.” In the much longer-term, ASHRAE is working to develop
a building labeling program that would base green performance on real
data, not just design projections.

“Their goal is that when you’re selling a space you have
an idea of its energy consumption. That will affect real estate values,”
Culp says. He adds, “It’s a new thing, still in its infancy, but they’re
pushing that way. I know ASHRAE has been pushing that with some other
big groups, trying to get federal backing for it.”

Waiting for Impact
While code and standard developers are looking forward and making plans
for the next generation of green, the rest of the world is still warily
watching for some kind of impact from the latest introductions.

“At this time, it is still too early to anticipate what
changes may be made to the IgCC code,” Turner says. “In recent code cycles,
we’ve seen the continuous tightening of the energy codes for improved
energy efficiency,” he adds.

That tightening is the point of the green codes: continually
pushing the envelope to stay ahead of the efficiency requirements set
out in the energy codes, and to stay ahead of normal code minimums. But
is the design and construction world prepared to build to tighter standards?
And, more to the point, are developers ready to shell out the big bucks
for a presumably higher performing investment?

“The big question, and I don’t really have a good answer,
is will it be used and how widely is it going to be used? LEED clearly
influences the market. Will these green codes do so? I don’t know. It’s
still early,” Culp says.

The next question might be: what’s after IgCC? Although
the IgCC fills a gap left open by LEED—the need for structured, mandatory
language—other programs may seek to fill additional needs.

“I’m not really sure what the ‘next big thing’ in green
building will be,” Parker says, “but I am rather certain that it will
take a significant amount of time to be absorbed and understood, as was
the case with LEED before it became so popular.”

In other words, only time will tell.

Keeping an Eye on the Next Standard Requirement
As ASHRAE 189.1 begins work on its upcoming edition, Tom Culp, owner of
Birch Point Consulting in LaCrosse, Wis., and representative of the Glass
Association of North America’s Glazing Industry Code Committee, is among
the industry representatives carefully watching and helping to direct
the future requirements of energy codes.

Culp points to several areas that glass industry representatives
are watching. “For instance, the visible transmittance (VT) issue we were
fighting over at ASHRAE 90.1 (see November 2010 USGlass, page 10), where
they want to continue to push daylighting. Pacific Northwest National
Lab had developed a minimum VT proposal for 90.1, and that got rejected
and voted down three times. They are not giving up. They’re taking that
over to 189.1, saying ‘if we can’t get it in 90.1 we’ll try it over in
the green code.’ We’ll have to debate it there as well and make the same
arguments, that VT is not the same as daylighting. Daylighting is very
important but you have to look at the orientation of the building, the
orientation and layout of the glazing, glare control, the function of
the space, along with VT, all of those things. It’s not just VT alone.”

Culp continues, “The other big thing we’re watching is they’re
continuing to push full life-cycle analysis, in addition to things like
recycled content. I think that’s a good thing. It’s a whole picture of
how the building and the materials and parts that go into it work, but
it does also add some complexity.”

Megan Headley is the special projects editor for USGlass.
She can be reached at mheadley@glass.com.